Clark v. Arizona
Encyclopedia
Clark v. Arizona, 548 U.S. 735 (2006), was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States
, in which the Court upheld the constitutionality of the insanity defense used by the State
of Arizona
. The ruling affirmed the murder conviction of a man with paranoid schizophrenia, for the killing of a police officer. The man had argued that his inability to understand the nature of his acts at the time they were committed should be a sufficient basis for showing he lacked the requisite mental state required as an element of the charged crime. The Court upheld Arizona's restriction of admissible mental health evidence only to the issue of insanity. Arizona does not allow mental health evidence to show that the defendant did not possess the required mental intent level necessary to satisfy an element of the crime. The evidence is only admissible if used to show that the defendant was insane at the time of the crime's commission. In this case, the defendant knew right from wrong so he could not qualify under Arizona's insanity defense.
Supreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all state and federal courts, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases...
, in which the Court upheld the constitutionality of the insanity defense used by the State
U.S. state
A U.S. state is any one of the 50 federated states of the United States of America that share sovereignty with the federal government. Because of this shared sovereignty, an American is a citizen both of the federal entity and of his or her state of domicile. Four states use the official title of...
of Arizona
Arizona
Arizona ; is a state located in the southwestern region of the United States. It is also part of the western United States and the mountain west. The capital and largest city is Phoenix...
. The ruling affirmed the murder conviction of a man with paranoid schizophrenia, for the killing of a police officer. The man had argued that his inability to understand the nature of his acts at the time they were committed should be a sufficient basis for showing he lacked the requisite mental state required as an element of the charged crime. The Court upheld Arizona's restriction of admissible mental health evidence only to the issue of insanity. Arizona does not allow mental health evidence to show that the defendant did not possess the required mental intent level necessary to satisfy an element of the crime. The evidence is only admissible if used to show that the defendant was insane at the time of the crime's commission. In this case, the defendant knew right from wrong so he could not qualify under Arizona's insanity defense.
See also
Court documents
- Full text - in vLex.us, HTML with links to precedents and legal texts.